Agenda item - BH2013/04102 - St Wulfran's Church, Greenways, Ovingdean, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Change of use from agricultural land (Sui Generis) to burial ground (D1).

(1)             The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was noted that St. Wulfran’s Church was a listed building, and the application related to a parcel of land adjoining the existing graveyard which was currently classified as agricultural land. The land adjoined the South Downs National Park to the west and was located in the Ovingdean Conservation Area. The application sought the change of use of the land as burial ground; the main considerations related to the impact of the proposals; the impact on local residents, ecology and amenity impacts. The land was currently adjacent to open countryside and not in use as farmland; the supporting information provided by the church described that the current burial ground was close to capacity and there was a need for additional space. No adverse impacts had been indentified and the burials were proposed to start west and progress east across the site, and the lower eastern side of the site was set aside as a natural meadow. No additional harm to the area, church or the conservation area had been indentified and the use was considered acceptable; as well as preserving the appearance of the conservation area. The meadow would provide visual relief, and there were no objections from either English Heritage or the Heritage Team. The supporting information stated that the burial policy would remain unchanged for Ovingdean residents and figures suggested burial numbers would be in the region of approximately ten a year, and the site would be screened by hedging. A number of objections had been raised in relation to the potential for increased vehicular numbers in the village attributed to burials; however, Officers had not indentified any potential increase and for the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(2)             Mr Anthony Kenney spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident. He stated that he lived at ‘Field End’ with his wife and noted the location of the site. The church had purchased the field two years ago which had double to size of the land it owned; the size of the burial would be out of proportion with the size of the church and have the potential capacity for 1500 burial plots. Many residents had objected on the grounds that they did want to live in close proximity to a ‘municipal burial ground’ in Ovingdean. It was estimated that the upper west 60% of the site would be sufficient for burials for 220 years at the current rate of burials, and the objectors were requesting that permission not be given for burials in the lower 40% of the site. The regulatory conditions in the application were strongly supported as biodiversity was currently ‘non-existent’ and it was requested that the lower 40% of the field be kept permanently as ‘wild field’.

(3)             Mr Kenney confirmed in response to Councillor Hyde that the upper 60% would be sufficient to provide burial sites for the next 220 years, and residents had largely accepted this use at this part of the site.

(4)             In response to Councillor Hamilton it was confirmed by Mr Kenney that the church had stated it would maintain their current burial policy; however, there was concern that this position could change and numbers could increase in response to the national shortage of burial sites.

(5)             Mr Ewart Wooldridge spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the Church Warden. He stated that the church was very satisfied with the report and Officer recommendation. It was considered the approach taken by Officers would protect the lower part of the field for use as a natural meadow. The church was firmly committed to preserving and enhancing the traditional appearance of the site and the church parish council had agreed the terms of reference to advise them on the landscaping of the site. The site would be a ‘special’ place for the community and open for other community activities. The church was confident with the Officer recommendation.

(6)             In response to Councillor Hyde it was confirmed by Mr Kenney that the current burial policy had three categories for burial and it was intended these would remain unchanged. They were specifically: those living in Ovingdean; those with very close connections to Ovingdean and those that had died in Ovingdean.

(7)             Councillor Jones asked about biodiversity and Mr Kenney explained that this was managed very carefully; close contact was maintained with experts and there was an active advisory group. Mr Kenny added there was already active wildlife at the site, and experts would advise on the landscaping on the site.

(8)             In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed by Mr Kenney that the figure of 10 burials a year was produced from 20 years of data, and the church had made explicit commitment to maintain the lower part of the site as a natural meadow.

Question(s) for Officers

(9)             The Chair referenced the report in relation to Councillor Hyde’s concern that the burial policy of the church could change. Councillor Hyde stated that she would prefer to see the burial policy formalised by condition to mitigate the concerns of residents. The Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, highlighted that there were strict tests in relation to the imposition of conditions – largely that they should necessary and reasonable, and any condition would have to be properly justified. Councillor Hyde replied that the access to the village was difficult and she was not content that the application would prevent the site becoming a large municipal cemetery.

(10)          Councillor Hamilton noted that it was likely the church would have to adhere to a diocese wide policy on burials.

(11)          The Head of Development Control clarified that the report before the Committee had carefully assessed the application and not identified a need to restrict the number of burials.

(12)          Councillor Hyde reiterated her position and stated the concerns of residents that the village was not a suitable site for a busy graveyard. The Principal Transport Officer Steven Shaw noted that no significant potential increase in traffic had been identified, and for this reason it was not considered necessary to restrict the number of burials at the site to make it acceptable in transport terms.

(13)          Councillor Littman noted that the church had managed the burial policy for a significantly long period of time and he did not consider it necessary to condition this.

(14)          The Committee voted on the proposal to impose an additional condition in relation to burial policy at the site, and the motion was defeated on a vote of 3 in favour with 8 against.

(15)          In response to Councillor Gilbey it was noted that the use class of the site could potentially be varied by application following the usual consultation and consideration.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(16)          Councillor Hyde noted that she would not be able to support the application.

(17)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission was carried on a vote of 9 in favour with 2 against.

189.3    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolved to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.

              Note: Councillor Duncan was not present at the meeting.